translation: . . .only this animal perceives an order in things:what things are fitting; what is the standard in words and deeds

"Qui" I take it is a personal pronoun, in agreement with "modus" (masculine, singular, nominative).

Incidentally, I don't try to make smooth English translations; I try to make translations that help me understand the Latin. In general I find literal translations more helpful in perceiving the Latin grammar, even if they don't make pretty English.

Note that "qui" is not a personal pronoun, hlawson38.I think you can often write literal translations that are good English, where grammar and sense unite. For instance, what I wrote above is an attempt to do both. I think it best to try, at least, because it humanizes the author. For example, I would say that "being" is a literal translation of "animal" if only because you will find "living being" in a dictionary definition of the Latin "animal" since the definitions of "living being" and "animal" overlap in English and "that" is a literal translation of the Latin "quod", again because the definitions overlap in English ("that" and "which"). I think it better, however, to write the subjunctives as subjunctives. That I didn't do but I agree with you that it is better to attempt to include it in good English and your translated subjunctives are good English.